Local weather affects about 1% of people in polls on Global Warming

For every three degrees F warmer (or cooler), about 1 % of respondents in surveys think there is more (or less) evidence that the Earth has been getting warmer (3 F = 1.6 C).

Alarmists will use this survey to tell us how dumb the punters are, but remember that even if temperatures are 10 degrees C hotter or colder than normal that still means 94% of people answering the survey have not changed their position, and that the question itself largely misses the point. The important factor is whether human emissions caused the warming, and if so, what percentage of the increase was due to man-made effects.

Local weather patterns temporarily influence people’s beliefs about evidence for global warming, according to research by political scientists at New York University and Temple University. Their study, which appears in the Journal of Politics, found that those living in places experiencing warmer-than-normal temperatures at the time they were surveyed were significantly more likely than others to say there is evidence for global warming.

“Global climate change is one of the most important public policy challenges of our time, but it is a complex issue with which Americans have little direct experience,” wrote the study’s co-authors, Patrick Egan of New York University and Megan Mullin of Temple University. “As they try to make sense of this difficult issue, many people use fluctuations in local temperature to reassess their beliefs about the existence of global warming.”

Their study examined five national surveys of American adults sponsored by the Pew Research Center: June, July, and August 2006, January 2007, and April 2008. In each survey, respondents were asked the following question: “From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?” On average over the five surveys, 73 percent of respondents agreed that the earth is getting warmer.

Egan and Mullin wondered about variation in attitudes among the survey’s respondents, and hypothesized that local temperatures could influence perceptions. To measure the potential impact of temperature on individuals’ opinions, they looked at zip codes from respondents in the Pew surveys and matched weather data to each person surveyed at the time of each poll. They used local weather data to determine if the temperature in the location of each respondent was significantly higher or lower than normal for that area at that time of year.

Their results showed that an abnormal shift in local temperature is associated with a significant shift in beliefs about evidence for global warming. Specifically, for every three degrees Fahrenheit that local temperatures in the past week have risen above normal, Americans become one percentage point more likely to agree that there is ‘‘solid evidence’’ that the earth is getting warmer. The researchers found cooler-than-normal temperatures have similar effects on attitudes—but in the opposite direction.

The study took into account other variables that may explain the results—such as existing political attitudes and geography—and found the results still held.

The researchers also wondered if heat waves—or prolonged higher-than-normal temperatures—intensified this effect. To do so, they looked at respondents living in areas that experienced at least seven days of temperatures of 10° or more above normal in the three weeks prior to interview and compared their views with those who experienced the same number of hot days, but did not experience a heat wave.

Their estimates showed that the effect of a heat wave on opinion is even greater, increasing the share of Americans believing in global warming by 5.0 to 5.9 percentage points.

However, Egan and Mullin found the effects of temperature changes to be short-lived—even in the wake of heat waves. Americans who had been interviewed after 12 or more days had elapsed since a heat wave were estimated to have attitudes that were no different than those who had not been exposed to a heat wave.

“Under typical circumstances, the effects of temperature fluctuations on opinion are swiftly wiped out by new weather patterns,” they wrote. “More sustained periods of unusual weather cause attitudes to change both to a greater extent and for a longer period of time. However, even these effects eventually decay, leaving no long-term impact of weather on public opinion.”

The findings make an important contribution to the political science research on the relationship between personal experience and opinion on a larger issue, which has long been studied with varying results.

“On issues such as crime, the economy, education, health care, public infrastructure, and taxation, large shares of the public are exposed to experiences that could logically be linked to attitude formation,” the researchers wrote. “But findings from research examining how these experiences affect opinion have been mixed. Although direct experience—whether it be as a victim of crime, a worker who has lost a job or health insurance, or a parent with children in public schools—can influence attitudes, the impact of these experiences tends to be weak or nonexistent after accounting for typical predictors such as party identification and liberal-conservative ideology.”

“Our research suggests that personal experience has substantial effects on political attitudes,” Egan and Mullin concluded. “Rich discoveries await those who can explore these questions in ways that permit clean identification of these effects.”

Egan is an assistant professor in the Wilf Family Department of Politics at NYU and Mullin is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Temple University.

I’ve navigated the reef occasionally since 1975 and I would say the only change is a slight growth and a bit a bleaching in some places with regrowth in others. And a huge increase in marine life with the increased protection against fishing. Then again, it’s a bloody big reef, so I can’t claim to have covered it all. I’ll check WUWT out though.

I think you’re wrong on that, Doug P. Last I heard scientists were “surprised” at the splendid health and growth of the reef. You’ve got to watch those percentages. Did the person reporting that look at the whole, or just a part? How much of the part? Where was the part? Was it a damaged part? It won’t have been the growing part, right? There’s been a “we’re losing the Great Barrier Reef” scare on since the seventies. They were wrong then, they are wrong now. Some people love to live in fear, or see others doing so, you don’t have to believe them.

I don’t know where you live Doug, but there is no way the reef has diminished by 50%. The reef is 2300km in length, and averages 350km in width.

At a glance
•The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest UNESCO heritage listed area
•Covers a huge 348,000 square km (134,364 sq miles)
•1975 was declared a Marine Park
•1981 inscribed onto the UNESCO World Heritage List
•It is not just one reef, but made up of over 2900 reefs, 600 rocky continental islands and 300 coral cays.

It makes news headlines when someone finds a spot of bleached coral. No way your statement is true.

It is also the same in Britain with extreme weather. 2cm of snow can bring chaos to the roads, especially if unexpected and at the start of winter. Similarly a heat wave (like this weeks 27 degree maximum in Manchester) can cause people to wilt in the heat.
When people envisage the problems of global warming, they view it relative to the current situation. Fact is people adjust very quickly, as the many emigrants in the past from Britain who adjusted to average temperatures more than 10 degrees warmer, are the many immigrants in Britain from Pakistan, India and the West Indies who made the bigger adjustment the other way.

Sorry, I’ve read Brignell’s “Sorry Wrong Number!” book and so I’m more alert to stunts like this.

In Grant Tribute Speak:

“Our research suggests that personal experience has substantial effects on political attitudes,” Egan and Mullin concluded. “Rich discoveries await those who can explore these questions in ways that permit clean identification of these effects.”

In Plain English:‘We are so embarrassed our putative cause was so weak (Adjusted R^2 = 0.12, Relative Risk ~ 1.08) we won’t even let ScienceDaily publish what it was. We hope someone else will vindicate this result some day, somehow.‘

Mind you, if local temperature didn’t influence people’s beliefs about global warming, James Hansen would not have tried exactly the same stunt in 1988 when testifying to congress.

When you glance through Egan and Mullins’ actual full paper you find some even more alarming statistics which are more worthy of headlines, such as their FIGURE 2 “Effects of Variables on Americans’ Beliefs about the Evidence for Global Warming”.

On the one hand it shows that the influence of political ideology and preferred political party is at least 3 times stronger in shifting their opinion on the plausibility of a global warming trend than the local weather effect which forms the headline.

On the other hand, the influence of the person’s education is around SEVEN TIMES LESS than local temperature.

Skeptics and teachers of the world, we still have a lot of work to do.

I can think only of the ways this information could be abused. Retooling the next volley of propaganda, timing commercials to coincide with warm weather events. Ultimately, timing votes on AGW legislation to the same events.

I recall that in the US, we were in the midst of a summer heat wave in Washington when the first “global warming” legislation was coming up for vote (in the 1980s?). Of course the US is experiencing drought (not unprecedented) this year, so I wonder what will come up for a vote in congress soon………

Mark D, I know this is way off topic, but where you quote the line from William Shakespeare.

If one line William Shakespeare wrote was the one most taken out of context, then this is it. The obvious thing is that this is the first of those ubiquitous ‘lawyer jokes’. However, nothing is furthest from the truth.

The line is from Henry VI. A gang uprising is trying to usurp the throne. One follower is Jack the butcher and he’s talking with the gang leader regarding what to do following the revolution. He quotes this immortal line.

The context is the opposite of what you think. The perception of Jack the butcher is that for a revolution to succeed, there needs to be anarchy followed by suppression of anything going against the principles which those leading the revolution aspire to. What they need to do is to get rid of people who might actually be rational enough to explain to the masses that the revolution is just a play for power by a bunch of thugs. So Jack the butcher, along with his leader, perceive lawyers really are a threat to their taking over.
That’s the context of that line, to kill off the ones most likely to get in their way.

However, if there is one thing of interest in what Shakespeare said it surrounds the actual word lawyers itself.

Tony,
That would suggest that since Shakespeare’s time that the shoe is now firmly entrenched on the other foot. Since now it is the “lawyers” (including the “lawmakers”, as I’m sure Shakespeare intended as inclusive to the term)who are promoting “anarchy followed by suppression of anything going against the principles which those leading the revolution aspire to”. Ironic, isn’t it.

Btw, Tony
Don’t denigrate prostitutes by comparing them to lawyers. Those ladies are far more principled, and at least produce something of worth to someone other than themselves, dubious though that distinction might be.

This ‘research’ does not surprise me at all. What did they expect when everyone from Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Will Steffen, Clive Hamilton, Greg Combet, Penny Wong, Bob Brown etc etc deliberately make the misleading connection between hot temperatures and man made global warming for their own political purposes.

So when it’s hotter people are believers, and when it’s colder they lose faith!

It would be much better if the scientists and the governments relied on real evidence and considered all climate drivers.

It is no surprise they have lead the people to a policy paralysis where we don’t want a carbon tax because we are not convinced that is justified, but true environmental action is being neglected!

So when it’s hot (which it has been here for all of three days this summer), that’s still “global warming”, but, when it rains non-stop for two months, that’s “climate change” – right? And “climate disruption” is when the Olympics are on in London and it starts tipping down (again). Got it.

Global climate change is one of the most important public policy challenges of our time, but it is a complex issue with which Americans have little direct experience,”

It isn’t climate change that they see as the greatest public policy challenge.
Climate change is just a proxy for getting the global population to change their minds and get neurotic about the contrived & overblown predictions of the effects of a trace gas in the atmosphere, so that they’ll cede their authority, wealth & freedoms to supra national , post-democratic, bureaucratic structures run by unaccountable , un elected, rent seeking career politicians.
That’s the challenge they address.

I do believe the media are principally culpable for the ignorance displayed in the electorate. But at the same time, the politicians outright lie and deceive to further their models at any cost. Add to those the fact that Mr and Mrs Joe citizen simply want to live their lives and enjoy life; politics is the last thing anybody “wants” to think about or try to unravel for themselves. It’s a fruitless exercise anyway, the politicians flip and flop at a whim, you’d be chasing ghosts to try to pin one down.

The money is the end result, but in order to ensure continuance of its supply one must first get hold of the reins of power.. That is what this really is all about and is actually nothing all that new, inventing problems which need certain special solutions has been going on since Roman times for sure – for as long as there has been a means to fool the masses long enough before they notice the slight of hand and the missing purse.. except now the purses are somewhat bigger and not ours to control.

For years I have been trying to understand what is meant by ‘climate change.’

If one looks at an old atlas, say from 1950, the climate descriptions or maps of most areas seem pretty well the same as today.
e.g. north Qld-rainy in summer;southern Australia-cool and rainy in winter;central Australia-dry and hot most of year;U.K.-very cool and mostly rainy;Amazon-very hot and rainy most of year;Sahara-very dry and hot most of year;India-Monsoon- rains in NH summer…
and I could add many more.

Each year there have been extremes from the norm at any of the places to some extent or another. Of course, in the 1950s, and before that, only the extreme of extremes might be reported by newspaper or radio.

Now, if a storm hits on the other side of the globe or a large iceberg calves the actual picture is seen by almost everyone on earth over and over and over in looping video clips add nausea.

So it is very easy to guide people to believe the climate is changing when it is just weather events or other natural events that get reported and over reported to an increasing degree.

Well said – and, if a glacier calves, remember to tell the Alarmists that that’s what glaciers do. The Alarmists can’t simultaneously complain about glaciers which advance, so that they reach the sea and calve, and glaciers that retreat and don’t (but I expect they do and I suppose they think we’ll fall for it).

A little earlier someone said that most people these days have a life that’s very sheltered from the weather.

Whether in homes or workplaces or shopping malls we experience a very “moderated” climate so that when our window to the world “Television” tells us we have Unprecedented warming, who are we to judge?.

26 July: Fox News: Barbara Marquand: Going Green With Credit Cards
Is green the new gold in credit cards?
That was the prediction in 2007 after GE Money planted the first seed with its new Earth Rewards MasterCard program, which promised to divert as much as 1 percent of customers’ purchases to projects for reducing emissions…
But GE Money quietly shut down the Earth Rewards program in July 2009. Energy & Environment Publishing reported that a GE spokesperson said there was not enough consumer interest in the program. At about the same time, MetaBank stopped accepting applications online for its much-touted Greenpay MasterCard, which also promised carbon dioxide offsets with customer purchases…
So does this mean green credit card rewards programs will wither and die?
Not necessarily. The Brighter Planet Visa Credit, provided by Bank of America, is still alive. The card lets you earn one “EarthSmart” point for every dollar you spend. Every point pays for approximately one pound of carbon offsets…
Although carbon offset credit cards are few and far between, other credit cards let you earn points toward donations to your favorite environmental causes, such as the World Wildlife Fund or Sierra Club…http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/07/26/going-green-with-credit-cards/

12 July: Marketwatch: 200,000 Ticketholders Sign up to Offset Travel Carbon Emissions to London 2012
BP Target Neutral is offering to offset the carbon footprint of all ticketed spectator journeys to and from the Olympic and Paralympic Games for free…
ANDREA ABRAHAMS, GLOBAL DIRECTOR FOR TARGET NEUTRAL said: “We believe this mass offset opportunity will raise awareness about the challenge we all face in living more sustainably and will engage people who might never before have thought about the carbon impact of their travel choices. Through collective action, individual and companies can work together to make a real difference to the environment and we hope this will prove to be a legacy for future events.”…
SEB COE, CHAIR OF LOCOG said: “Sustainability underpins all of our plans – and has done since the bid. BP’s Target Neutral scheme is a fantastic opportunity for millions to offset their carbon footprint and help London 2012 to inspire positive social, economic and environmental change for the future.”…
EDITORS NOTES
BP Target Neutral is a founding member of ICROA, the International Carbon Reduction and Offsetting Alliance which has recently merged with IETA, the International Emissions Trading Association…
Ernst & Young has reviewed the Target Neutral London 2012 spectator programme in order to provide an objective assessment of BP’s description of the assumptions, method and reporting principles used within ERM’s methodology.http://www.marketwatch.com/story/200000-ticketholders-sign-up-to-offset-travel-carbon-emissions-to-london-2012-2012-07-12

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

What is not clear, NASA make another embarassing “its unprecedented” claim and then state and i will repeat just for you

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Now lets break this down a bit.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average……..

Ergo this latest event is not unprecedented, next

With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data

Ergo this latest event occurred right when we expected it to, next

“But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Ergo there is nothing unusual about this event and i fear i might lose my AGW funding so just to be sure i will throw in a booga booga line about “what IF” to perpetuate the myth that i am an all seeing, all knowing climate scientist and my predictions based on faith (in making money) should not be brought into question.

Just enough of the surface melted to produce slush in the top inch or so (all the satellite needs to see it) then refroze as the front passed, now the poor polly bears will have that messy frozen slush to slide around in, hope there are not a lot of rear end collisions, like we get under the same conditions on the roadways.

So you are just happy to accept Robert’s assessment – “Perth on track for coldest month on record”.

In fact the headline is misleading as the post only refers to minimum temperatures, which have been below the long term average. A little research on the BOM website would show you that maximum temperatures are above the long term average.

BB do you not see the irony of just how stupid you are? Firstly you “fall” for the headline fron NASA even though NASA contradict themselves and then you have the audacity to claim my Perth link is false what a stupid fool you are.

Is the month of June in Perth headed for a record low of temps? Yes or no BB, dont quibble over semantics my the faith is strong in you.

Firstly Crakar, NASA were a little vague regarding the extent of the 1889 melt. Why don’t you send them an email and ask for clarification. Did you watch the video I linked to: where do think all that water came from?

Secondly, “coldest or warmest” generally refers to maximums. The headline made no such distinction, but the text was referring to minimums. Therefore my claim that the headline is misleading is correct. I never claimed the headline was false, you made just made that up. Read my post again just to make sure.

Is the month of June in Perth headed for a record low of temps? Yes or no BB, dont quibble over semantics my the faith is strong in you.

Crakar, given your referenced article was referring to July, you should “see the irony of just how stupid you are”. The month of June ended 27 days ago, but for the record both average minimum and maximum temps for June were above the long term average.

As for a “record low of temps” time will tell, but the headline said “Perth on track for coldest month on record”, so you’re talking about a totally different statistic. Strangely enough maximum temperatures are above the long term average.

Finally Crakar, I’d like to aplogise about the comment I made a while ago regarding your IQ being 24. Clearly, I grossly overestimated it.

Crack as you’d well know perth is cold at night in winter when there are no clouds and no rain. So our “coldest” July is a result of no rain and no clouds, hardly a ringng endorsement for any sort of ice age. In summer it would lead to hotter and dryer.

So Mattb where has all the rain gone.With the earth supposedly heating you would think that there would be more evaporation from the ocean and as Perth gets most of its weather from the southern ocean you would think it would be bucketing down but no it is not.

Exactly what I was going to say MattB. Its cold because its not raining, which is what its supposed to do in July.

As for where its gone, rukidding, it started going away in the 70′s. I suspect (but don’t know for sure) that the cold fronts that bring us rain have moved a little further south, meaning we don’t ge them, or we get a weaker part of them.

We’ve had hot summers recently, where the average temperature has been pretty high, but we haven’t had any extremely hot days in recent years, and I really hope we don’t.

* warmer days are more likely over the western half of Australia, and southern Australia
* warmer than average nights more likely across southern WA, and large parts of the eastern mainland of Australia

The chances that the average maximum temperature for winter will exceed the long-term median maximum temperature… Odds exceed 80% across western WA (see map above).

Bungalow Bill might best stick to tiger hunting with his elephant gun and his mum.

how’s this? “ALL” power generated in Oz in 8 years’ time MUST come from renewables, says Babs at the ABC:

26 July: ABC Australia: Babs McHugh: Wind power more likely than solar to attract investment
Both the Federal Government and the Opposition have agreed on renewable energy targets (RET), so all power generated in Australia by 2020 must come from renewable sources…
However, she says renewables are still struggling to gain ground against fossil fuels and they still need public incentives…
Ms Mey says it’s expected that, within the next 20 years, renewables will provide six gigawatts of energy.
“But that depends on government commitment and investment activities,” she said…http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201207/s3554081.htm

the real figure!

Renewable Energy Target
In August 2009, the Government implemented the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme, which is designed to deliver on the Government’s commitment to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply will come from renewable sources by 2020http://www.climatechange.gov.au/ret

as most of you may know, when I first started out more than four years ago now, the idea was to indicate what the end result might be if we were to go down the path of reducing emissions. The major source of those is coal fired power, and in that Series of more than 50 Posts, I actually canvassed ways of generating power. (That is if we had to close down those large scale coal fired plants, and not one of them has closed in the U.S. in those more than 4 years)

One of them that I did find promising was salt water hydro power, a form of pumped storage. Admitted, it’s still only small scale, and still not 24/7/365 power, but this is one form of hydro that I don’t think can be argued against.

It’s still only formative, but there is one plant in operation at Okinawa and that is generating 30MW.

Still I suppose the greenies will argue about the fishies being shredded, which I suppose is more important than birdies being shredded.

One of them that I did find promising was salt water hydro power, a form of pumped storage. Admitted, it’s still only small scale, and still not 24/7/365 power, but this is one form of hydro that I don’t think can be argued against.

Adam Smith, you will find most of the intelligent readers of this blog are in favour of nuclear power in general. Thorium based nuclear is especially promising and realistic. It is just that for Australia, we are so far behind the nuclear 8-ball that we need coal and hydro to actually produce 24/7/52 power in a cheap, efficient and environmentally friendly fashion.

Tony, our Green Betters have it covered: a massive lifestyle change to offset any perceived inefficiencies of renewables.

For example, if Cate Blanchett is flying in a certain tonnage of batteries for her new (waterfront) tropical island home, the pilot can be refused payment if he is known to leave his TV on standby.

Similarly, when booking one of those purely recreational Virgin Galactic space flights, the whole transaction can be either paperless or signed-up with re-fillable, infinitely re-useable fountain pens. I’ll bet Richard Branson has some nice ones.

The survey seems to confirm the UHI effect; regardless it confirms that the AGW ‘concept’ has now gone from the absurd to the surreal with academic political scientists [a joke profession if ever there was one] surveying people about their impressions of AGW and concluding if they live where it has got warmer they will think AGW is real and vice-versa for those folk who live in cooling climes.

As we all know, any warming is proof of CAGW and is screamed about all across the media, but all cooling is merely “weather” and doesn’t even crack a mention.

So when it is warm people are being constantly bombarded with “news” about it, but when it’s cool they hear nary a tweet.
So the only time they hear about, and subsequently think about CAGW is when it is warm.

As a consequence, I’d be surprised if there WASN’T a spike in belief/concern during the warm periods.
Ditto for anything that can be labeled “extreme”.

What question Matt? That 1% of people will think AGW is real if local temperature increases by 1.6C? Was that seasonlly distingushed, that is an increase in Summer or Winter, or an annual figure? Were people told of a local increase before being asked or were their impressions given before confirmation of the impression by the increase or decrease in temperature?

Ultimately, as Jo suggests, what is the point of the exercise; that AGW is legitimised, or not, by the impressions of people based on local temperature effects? This study is another example of why academics are held in such disdain by average people.

Ultimately, as Jo suggests, what is the point of the exercise; that AGW is legitimised, or not, by the impressions of people based on local temperature effects? This study is another example of why academics are held in such disdain by average people.

Where is your evidence that “average people” hold “academics” in disdain? Surely you should reference this assertion with some evidence, else it can simply be rejected.

Conducting research on why people hold certain beliefs is perfectly valid academic research. There has been similar research into other scientific theories such as evolutionary theory, which is as close as an undisputed fact as you can get in science, yet, for example, only a minority of Americans believe it is true.

a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents [was] whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with.

*Before replying to this post, please look up both definitions of the word “consensus”, else you may come across as very foolish.

“Where is your evidence that “average people” hold “academics” in disdain? Surely you should reference this assertion with some evidence, else it can simply be rejected.”

Adam why don’t you go down to a local football match this weekend and ask the spectators what they think of academics.Then you could report back here on monday assuming your nose and jaw are in the same place they were when you went down there.

Adam why don’t you go down to a local football match this weekend and ask the spectators what they think of academics.Then you could report back here on monday assuming your nose and jaw are in the same place they were when you went down there.

LOL!

Rather than telling me to acquire some anecdotal evidence, why don’t you instead present me with some actual detailed research on your assertion that proves that “academics are held in such disdain by average people.”

I guess you’ll first have to start of with what you mean by “average people”, because that isn’t straight forward.

Remember actual survey results need to be based on representative and randomised sampling. You know, perhaps a survey performed by an academic type so that it is statistically rigorous.

I don’t mean you having a chat with someone down at the football, because that would be an ANECDOTE, not actual research if it wasn’t just one part of an actual randomised and representative survey.

That is what I thought? It looks like they are just examining a pretty unsurprising behaviour – our opinions are affected by our senses. Woop de doo. That is their research topic so it is not missing a point. I could easily say, “but they are missing the point, Hawthorn is possibly peaking too early”, and it would make as much sense.

Have faith Matt, have faith! (But as any Freo fan knows, be prepared for disappointment).

And the study makes perfect sense. People are fickle and their opinions change with the wind. As Bob said, “Don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” (or something like that – I’m notoriously bad at remembering song lyrics, as my son will point out).

As a Fremantle fan and a CAGW cheerleader, you must be the patron saint of lost causes, John.
Btw, your Bob Dylan quote about not needing “a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” is rather ironic for someone who consistently uses the argument of authority for applied weathermen- ie. climate scientists.

This may see off topic, but I can perhaps draw a long bow and say that it is in reality about local weather, even if it is in China.

They have just had, and in fact are still in, one of the largest floods in recent times.

Much has been said (by you know which colour supporters) of the (alleged) travesty that is the Three Gorges Dam.

Ostensibly built to generate (humungous amounts of) hydro electric power, one of the main reasons it was constructed was for flood mitigation on the Yangtze River. The Hydro was just that added bonus.

In fact in the last major flood there, in 1998, prior to Three Gorges, 4150 people were killed in that flood.

However, one of those ‘super’ floods occurred in this area in 1954. This disaster flooded over 75,000 square miles, and more than 30,000 lives were lost. Huge cities were flooded , and one, Wuhan, a city of 8 million people was completely covered and remained that way for three months. More than 18.8 million people were forced to move.

This flood however saw Three Gorges handling larger amounts of water than that most recent 1998 flood, in fact inflows of a hard to even imagine 71,000 cubic metres (2.5 million cubic feet) of water ….. per second, flowing into the huge dam, and no, that is not a misprint.

It seems that Three Gorges contrary to being such a travesty, is in fact quite a large life saver, and saves Billions in flood damage, as well as supplying total power in the equivalent of 35% of every watt being consumed in the whole of Australia.

I was there in January Tony, I’d be surprised if it is only supplying the equivalent of 35% of all power consumed in Australia. It was first designed to provide 8% – 10% of the entire country’s power needs.

Some one-third of China’s population, which I think equates to about 10% of the world’s population live along the Yangtze. Anyway, with all turbines going it now provides 3% of China’s power needs, because China’s power needs have grown astronomically since it was planned. I would still have guessed that was more than 35% of what Australia uses – but happy to be corrected because I haven’t researched it.

The amazing thing is, they plan to put another three hydro power stations along the Yangtze with the equivalent power capacity, because just because the water has passed through one it doesn’t mean it can’t be harnessed again and again.

But as you say, the main purpose of the Three Gorges Project was flood mitigation. Floods not only killed a lot of people, destroyed a lot of property and ruined a lot of crop, it disrupted one of the main transport routes through China.

People in China are far more ready to talk out about Government mismanagement nowadays. I talked to a lot of people who were forcibly relocated because of the dam project and apart from some older people who were wistful about losing their ancestors homes, they all have homes which are bigger and better, and have running water and electricity (at least to a block) which they didn’t have before.

(3 pages) 27 July: SMH: Michael West: How dodgy forecasts inflate your energy bill
If any further evidence were needed to demonstrate how the power companies, both state-owned and private, have been foisting unnecessary price hikes on their customers, it can be found in the industry’s own energy forecasts.
Forecasts of demand for electricity have a significant impact on the price of electricity. The higher the forecasts, the more money earmarked by industry for network upgrades in order to cater for this supposed increase in demand. In turn, the higher the financial returns for the industry players.
***Ironically, as the transmission and distribution companies earn a regulated return on their assets, they have a perverse incentive to spend for the sake of spending.
Yet the great conundrum of the radical rise in Australian electricity prices – up 70 per cent in six years and poised to ratchet another 30 per cent higher this year and the next – is that consumer demand has actually been falling, and falling for years…
Not only has the electricity industry failed to recognise a change of trend in total demand, but in peak summer demand and peak winter demand too…http://m.smh.com.au/business/how-dodgy-forecasts-inflate-your-energy-bill-20120727-22xxf.html

***”they have a perverse incentive to spend for the sake of spending”. why does that sound like our Govt?

Imagine my surprise today to discover that last night, whilst the east coast slept, the West Coast Moderator Elves were hard at work building me a spiffy-looking gold-star. Thank you for that. I note it was awarded for services to such a worthy target too. It’s enough to make one burst into song.

Truthseeker
July 27, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Adam Smith, you will find most of the intelligent readers of this blog are in favour of nuclear power in general.

Well actually I have debated quite a few people here who don’t support Australia using nuclear, and the arguments they trot out against it are basically the same arguments you expect from members of the Greens.

Thorium based nuclear is especially promising and realistic.

Thorium may prove to be good, but we should concentrate on what actually works, Generation III plants such as the Westinghouse AP1000. We should aim to have a plant with two such reactors by the end of this decade. Once we have one plant done, we should aim to build another one ever 3 or 4 years after that.

It is just that for Australia, we are so far behind the nuclear 8-ball that we need coal and hydro to actually produce 24/7/52 power in a cheap, efficient and environmentally friendly fashion.

Well brown coal is out because that is no longer economic, and gas is cheaper than black coal. Of course nuclear is now cheaper than gas thanks to the carbon price.

ok.. (I have an eye problem atm, so please try to ignore typos etc.. can’t see the screen very well, not happy )

old nuclear has major issues, eg clean-up at de-commission.very costly. what to do with the remnants etc.. you maybe know these problems.

thorium LS, I don’t know enough about this yet, but from discussions with guys who do (CSIRO, but NOT the cliamte department) , it certainly seems to be a very possible future energy supply (unlike solar and wind, which is basicallly a fwotam)

Now if only the people who we somehow elect were to actually start to ignore the ignorant so-called green no-energy agenda.. maybe we cou;ld get somewhere.

In the mean time, however, gas and coal are the obvious sensible economic energy supplies.

In Australia, we have abundant coal and gas, and can produce energy at very low costs if stupd politics would get out the way.

What dio we want? A nation strapped to high cost, economically ridiclous so-calle renewables, or a good solid supply of reliable, cheap energy that benefots industry and domestic alike.

We are a small country, very little we do will make one iota of difference to any globbal emmisions or global climat, why the heck are we strangling ouselves. ?????????

How nice it is to see you commit, but if you seriously think a two reactor PWR. the dual loop Advanced Passive AP1000 (only finally approved for use late last year) can be actually online and delivering power by the end of this decade, then you are dreaming.

As much as I support Nuclear Power Plants, what needs to happen first is that the public needs to be brought along first, and Doctor, that debate hasn’t even started yet, and Labor themselves say that the debate is not even on the horizon. Following that debate, public approval, and then legislation, then and only then can they start. From the thought bubble, through planning etc, financing etc, all the studies etc and then construction you are looking at a timespan of up to 10 years. That’s not hyperbole, that’s the facts of the matter. It has nothing to do with a ‘Command Economy’ as you once said. It’s the reality. Don’t just dream that we can do it because we are Aussies and we can do anything. It’s the reality.

The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time starting from scratch.

Doctor, I know you’re angling for bites, but even you don’t believe there will be Nuclear power before the turn of this Decade, so, I’ll tell you what. You just talk amongst yourselves there, because we’ve been all over this before, and I won’t be adding anything more to this.

Nice to see you commit though. Pretty safe too, because we will all have forgotten what you said her when that time passes by.

As much as I support Nuclear Power Plants, what needs to happen first is that the public needs to be brought along first, and Doctor, that debate hasn’t even started yet, and Labor themselves say that the debate is not even on the horizon. Following that debate, public approval, and then legislation, then and only then can they start. From the thought bubble, through planning etc, financing etc, all the studies etc and then construction you are looking at a timespan of up to 10 years. That’s not hyperbole, that’s the facts of the matter. It has nothing to do with a ‘Command Economy’ as you once said. It’s the reality. Don’t just dream that we can do it because we are Aussies and we can do anything. It’s the reality.

I agree that any plants by the end of the decade would require a pretty much immediate public and political about-face on the topic on nuclear energy.

.
Before anybody gets too excited about building large-scale power stations – nuclear or otherwise, I suggest they email GE for current lead times on steam turbines of a suitable size. The answer may shock you.

And before anybody suggests gas as an alternative, see above, plus tell us where the gas to power it is going to come from. In case people haven’t noticed, all gas field development is done on the basis of contracts to buy the gas signed BEFORE the first production well is drilled. Yes, we might have plenty of it, but we’ve already sold it.

Sorry folks, but with announcement today of the cancellation of the planned Latrobe brown coal station, we are now locked in to rolling brown-outs and black-outs up and down eastern Australia, starting about 2015.

Sorry folks, but with announcement today of the cancellation of the planned Latrobe brown coal station, we are now locked in to rolling brown-outs and black-outs up and down eastern Australia, starting about 2015.

But Smithy says that brown coal is uneconomical now … not that it bothers the Germans where the politically-inflated costs of burning it don’t even justify combined cycle gas turbine installations.

Victoria has a rather flexible load: They can stop running their trams and commuter trains whenever there’s a shortage of electricity. I can’t think of a better way of convincing Melbournites to never, ever again vote Green

Victorian State Government threatens to withdraw its funding blah blah blah…

Didn’t fulfill terms of agreement blah blah blah…

Greens say nail in the coffin blah blah blah…

Then hidden away at the very bottom of the article is the following:

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in March gave Dual Gas the green light to build its 600-megawatt plant but said works could not begin until an equivalent amount of higher greenhouse gas emitting electricity generation was retired.

Not proposed to be retired, but actually retired.

So, they cannot even begin the process until some other plant is taken from the grid, and in Victoria that means those brown coal fired plants.

So, take the power away and then start the process, which would probably not see power supplied back to the grid by this new plant for up to five years, but seriously, what Company in their right mind would even consider going through the process with so many impediments placed in their way, and then a rebuff like this.

Where memoryvault mentions brown outs and black outs up and down Eastern Australia, that’s most definitely not just scaremongering.

It’s the real and frightening truth.

memoryvault may sometimes ask for people to be held to account for things like this, and this is one occasion where I agree completely with him.

You don’t expect politicians to have the faintest clue about things like this, but seriously, they are the ones solely to blame. Not because they have no idea, but that they have surrounded themselves with sycophants who give the wrong advice and tell them just what they want to hear.

This is madness on a scale that is unimaginable, and while these people should be held to account, this is a case where we all pay, and pay very dearly.

When William Shakespeare had Mark Antony saying “The evil that men do lives after them”, then that should apply here as well. There won’t be much good to lie interred with their bones.

How nice it is to see you commit, but if you seriously think a two reactor PWR. the dual loop Advanced Passive AP1000 (only finally approved for use late last year) can be actually online and delivering power by the end of this decade, then you are dreaming.

Why are you talking our country down?

There’s two AP1000 being built in the U.S. that were approved in Feb of this year:

The first reactor is expected to come online in 2016 and the second one in 2017, according to Southern Co.

Why do you think it is so unreasonable for Australia to accomplish the same task in 7.5 or 8 years that the Yanks seem confident of doing in 5?

The hardest part would be getting the first reactor built. Subsequent reactors could be built in half the time. So we should find aim to build a plant with two reactors. Have the first one operating by 2020, then the next one could be up and running in a few years after that.

Now I am not disputing that it would take longer because we don’t have an existing nuclear power industry. But if we had an explicit federal government policy of having at least one reactor operating by 2020, then it could be achieved within a 7.5 year time frame.

And hey, our close alliance with the U.S. could prove useful in terms of having Australian nuclear physicists trained in the U.S. so we have a workforce ready by the time the plant opens.

As much as I support Nuclear Power Plants, what needs to happen first is that the public needs to be brought along first, and Doctor, that debate hasn’t even started yet, and Labor themselves say that the debate is not even on the horizon.

Support for nuclear power is already around 50% Now there were some polls done shortly after Fukushima that have that figure in the low 40s, but most before that are in the low 50s because people are now more worried about climate change than nuclear ‘waste’.

Following that debate, public approval, and then legislation, then and only then can they start. From the thought bubble, through planning etc, financing etc, all the studies etc and then construction you are looking at a timespan of up to 10 years. That’s not hyperbole, that’s the facts of the matter. It has nothing to do with a ‘Command Economy’ as you once said. It’s the reality. Don’t just dream that we can do it because we are Aussies and we can do anything. It’s the reality.

Who mentioned “command economy”? Certainly not me. It would only take a year to get all the regulation done. And the parliament should amend the Clean Energy Act so that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation can give funding to nuclear power projects on the same terms as solar, wind, geothermal etc. It shouldn’t be treated any differently to other low carbon generation technologies.

The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time starting from scratch.

But we actually wouldn’t be starting from scratch. There was significant work done in the mid to late 1960s searching for suitable areas in terms of geological stability for nuclear power plants in most states. The Commonwealth even chose a site at Jervis Bay, but the project was dumped by MacMahon, who was anti-nuclear, after he won the Liberal leadership from Gorton, who was pro-nuclear. See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant_proposal

Doctor, I know you’re angling for bites, but even you don’t believe there will be Nuclear power before the turn of this Decade, so, I’ll tell you what. You just talk amongst yourselves there, because we’ve been all over this before, and I won’t be adding anything more to this.

You are just demonstrating a defeatist attitude. If the Australian Government changed policy and was willing to allow nuclear power plants to be built in Australia we could have our first reactor operating by 2020, and another reactor at the same plant operating a few years after that.

Nice to see you commit though. Pretty safe too, because we will all have forgotten what you said her when that time passes by.

Tony.

What are you talking about? I have been convinced since for years that nuclear power is Australia’s best option for keeping power prices down while reducing carbon emissions at the same time.

You STILL haven’t addressed the question of where you are going to get the steam turbine from, in anything like a timeframe of eight to ten years.

Given a good project management team, sufficient engineers, plenty of fitters and coded welders, and unfettered supply of steel and pipe, and you can have the “steam” side of a power station in six months.

But you still need the turbine/generator/governor set that the steam is meant to power.

We can’t build these things in Australia. We don’t have the expertise, we don’t have the technology, we don’t have the equipment, and we don’t have the raw materials (specialised steels) or the ability to produce them. The waiting list for equipment in the capacity range under discussion, is currently over seven years.

Ergo, there will not be a major power station that is not already under construction (if any) brought online in the next decade.

heck yeah, JB.. so how about you tell your left wing Union and greenie mates to get the …. out the way and let real people get on with it !!!

Stop with all this global warming nonsense, stop with the ludicrously expensive “alternative”, so-called “sustainable”, but totally inefficient and ineffective wind and solar projects. Get on with fixing up the cheap, affordable, consistent, coal fired electricity generation capacity that has been so stupidly allowed to downgrade because of the moronic AGW agenda.

Forget about our TINY contribution to global CO2, which is only beneficial anyway.. and get the economy working again !!!!!

As you say, we have so much potential, so why are Labor, the Greens and the Unions ALWAYS trying to stifle it ?????????????????????????????????????

IIRC, about the quickest anybody build GenIII (or “better”) NPPs is around 7 years. That’s KEPCO of South Korea. I understand that their order books are full. I also understand that all the steel plants around the globe that can make reactor vessels are fully booked with existing orders for quite some time.

The “classical” route to nuclear power is with light water (cooled) reactors. There are technologies such as molten salt which require less reactor plant for the same power output. But they aren’t going to be in demonstration phase until at least 2016. 2020 would be the earliest for any (pilot) production-size reactor and then 3 years of operating that to iron out the bugs and to “productionise” (and another 3 to 5 years for a type approval by the IAEA); to be produced in a manner similar to large airliners. Not likely to be full scale before 2030.

Meanwhile; we have plenty of coal to burn to produce electricity and to fertilise our agriculture.

A couple of “classical” reactors off-the-rack could be under construction in the early 2020′s, ramping up local expertise in preparation for replacing carbon-fuelled power stations with modular nuclear reactors.

Australia has almost NO indigenous expertise or experience in building a nuclear power station. Certainly not enough to do the job. Nor does Australia have the manufacturing capability to do it. It may have been the case in the 1980′s, but certainly not now. And not within the next 5 years even if “infinite” funds were available.

Analysis of this conversation is illuminating for both casual and regular observers of this blog. Adam Smith and JB indulge in generalities, flag waving, sloganeering and pie-eyed optimism with a notable absence of factual content. Tony, Berndt, MV instead deal with pragmatism, specifics rather than generalities, evidence their responses from expertise and the governments own white paper on the subject, and also in MV’s case highlight the rate limiting steps in the process in the real world situation, not the fantasies of a pro nuclear minor government functionary. The gulf in expertise and believability is as stark as it is wide.

Tony, while I don’t presume to know what’s round the corner, it’s interesting to note that Europe has suffered four consecutive winters where snow and cold have caused very serious problems, though each extended event has been different in time of year, peak location etc. This year, 2012, brought a coldwave of historic proportions.

When you think of the likely worst heatwaves in the US and Britain (1936 and 1976 respectively) both were associated with extreme winters within the same year. England’s ferocious drought and heat of ’76, coming in the middle of the cooling scare, was enough to jolt all fondly held climate theories. So no single event will give any indicator. Some will offer explanations, but I am inclined to accept none, especially from our gang-reviewing CAGW theorists and our Green Betters.

There is, however, one thing that is definite. Humanity needs and deserves cheap, available energy from the readiest source. Once that might have been peat or wood or dung. Now it is fossil fuels, nukes and hydro. What it will be later, I don’t know, but it won’t be wind, wave, or solar in their present state of development. It won’t be Timmy’s Geothermia.

It made me go and look for something I once had that had disappeared. It was an article from the London Times, and then they went and hid their articles behind a pay wall, and no matter what I tried, I could not locate the article. So, recently, I tried other ways to find the article, and I ended up finding it.

The origin of the interest stems from The Kyoto Protocol, and how 23 Countries have been directed by the UN to not only pay all their own costs but also the costs for every other Developing Countries, something I detailed in a Post of my own from November of 2010.

That money that we (as one Country of those 23) are sending to the UN is being then used by The World Bank to subsidise the construction of, and wait for this, large scale new technology coal fired power plants in those Developing Countries.

It was an easy thing for me to say that this was happening, but having said it, I had no real verification.

I finally found an original copy of that same article, and now I actually can back up what I have been saying.

It’s from September of 2009.

Odd. In the one breath they tell us that coal fired power is something we should be moving away from in our own Countries, and here they are, diverting our own money to the construction of new technology coal fired power plants in those developing countries.

We’re not allowed to, and they are already doing it, with the money that we send them.

An average of 73% of people across 5 surveys say there is “strong evidence” to support the proposition of global warming.

However, if a person has experienced weather that is an average of 7 degrees Fahrenheit below the average for that month in the week before they were asked, this figure drops to about 69%.

If the person was interviewed a week after experiencing average temps that are 20 degrees Fahrenheit above average, 77% of them will say there is strong data for human induced climate change.

So people saying they believe there is “solid evidence” of global warming goes from 69%, which I guess we could call “high”, to 77%, which I guess we could call “very high”. The over all average is 73%, which is still high.

‘Adam’ you have done what all of those other sneaky alarmist scientists, politicians and ideologically driven activists have done. You have deliberately mislead the readers.

First you state you have read the papers so hey – you can trust me. I even accessed the original. You know, probably through a university, so I’m really smart.

Then I’ll disregard the whole point of Jo Nova’s article, which is people are swayed about something as long term as global warming by something as recent as local weather events.

Then you slip in the lie:

If the person was interviewed a week after experiencing average temps that are 20 degrees Fahrenheit above average, 77% of them will say there is strong data for human induced climate change.

Where in the questionnaire did it mention ‘human induced climate change’? It only refers to ‘global warming’.

Once you’ve slipped in that misleading connection between plain old, naturally occurring global warming and the no evidence for human induced climate change, you can slip back into the truth”, that the overall average of 73% who believe in global warming is still high. Of course by now you hope most readers think global warming and human induced climate change are one and the same thing.

The alternative is that you aren’t being deliberately deceptive. Instead you are simply that blinded by your human induced climate change faith, that you read the paper and really thought it stated ‘human induced climate change’ when it simply stated ‘global warming!

HAHAHAHHAHAHAH WOAH! Clearly you didn’t read the paper, because the authors use global warming and climate change interchangeably.

Now whether or not you think that is a bad thing to do is up to you.

The actual question people were asked was:

“From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?”

So you are right that the average 73% figure could include people who think the Earth is warming but don’t think human activities have anything to do with it.

So which is it Adam, deliberately deceptive or just simple minded?

Neither.

———————————————————-
[Adam, you really have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar here. Why not just fess up? You wrote 'human induced climate change' when it wasn't mentioned in the paper. I would say it was an undergrad error but there are so many climate (and other) scientists doing it nowadays! - Mod]

Adam Smith is perfectly within his rights to use the words “global warming” and “climate change” as implicitly implying human causation. This is the standard of the IPCC, CSIRO and BOM. Adam is merely adopting the highest scientific standards. I for one am convinces that if the world has warmed in the past few decades that there can be no other credible explanation other than we did it!
When will be jut learn to leave the climate alone and stop messing with it? When will we learn???

I’m within my rights to believe in climate change and global warming as natural and constant phenomena in which it is impossible not to believe. I’m in my rights to use and comprehend those expressions in the common English sense and no other sense.

In fact, our Green Betters need to understand that such a blatant intellectual and verbal stunt will only blot the already blotted reputations of those bodies who pretend to legislate language itself with such impudence.

I’m just about to go out to see some stand up comedy, but I don’t think I’ll get a bigger laugh than the one I just got.

So according to you (not a definition someone may choose to write at the beginning of a report to abbreviate their report), based on the “highest scientific standards” the only global warming is human induced, and the only climate change is human induced.

So why wasn’t the climate constant on earth until humans came along?

So Sonny, where Adam Smith is deliberately deceptive, I think you must be the other alternative!

[Adam, you really have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar here. Why not just fess up? You wrote 'human induced climate change' when it wasn't mentioned in the paper. I would say it was an undergrad error but there are so many climate (and other) scientists doing it nowadays! - Mod]

—————————————————————–
[Global warming, or cooling for that matter cannot be 'by definition' caused by human activities when there have been plenty of periods of both global warming and cooling in the past before humans walked the earth and before industrialisation. - Mod]

Firstly, there have been periods of both global warming and cooling since industrialisation. They cannot both be explained by the theory of human green house gas emissions.

Secondly, but most profoundly – if Adam Smith is correct then hold the presses, contact the IPCC, stop all the research grants because Adam Smith has alone been able to say with 100% certainty what even the IPCC and their battalions of cheer leading climate alarmist scientists have NEVER claimed; that by definition global warming “means caused by carbon emissions caused by human activities”.

Even with their best ever spin the most they could wring out of the IPCC report was that there was a high probability that the recent warming was caused by human activity. Which was not actually reflected in the evidence provided in the supporting reports – but that a whole other issue!

You are embarrassing yourself ‘Adam’. What did you claim to have a PhD in?

Thirdly, and a minor matter I keep getting back to and you keep avoiding, is the question people were asked was about global warming, not human caused climate change, not human caused global warming, not green house gasses, not CO2 – how many times do I have to say it ‘Adam’?

Not that I really expect to admit you just totally got it wrong and then deliberately misrepresented the papers in the hope no-one noticed. A bit Hockey Team style huh?

It is sad ‘Adam’ that you think driving people to frustration means winning! It says a lot about your lack of actual content and character.

It is easy to frustrate people. Toddlers do it to their parents all the time because the toddlers have a lack of communication skills. We forgive the toddlers though. They don’t have PhD’s!

So your tactic is to say crazy things, or refuse to give a straight answer until someone calls you an idiot or similar, then you run off claiming victory? Well on that basis ‘Adam’, you are going to have a lot of ‘victories’ I guess.

It’s a hoot to read the tut-tut wiki articles on France’s nukes, ending with some vague anti-nuke gesturing by the new Hollande government. Do our Green Betters ever think when they flick a switch or turn a tap?

Mind you, someone had better tell Poland and Germany about the high “price” (oh, that word!) of brown coal, now that they are building plants thirty percent more efficient to use their vast lignite reserves, some newly discovered. They might say to Francois Hollande: thanks to our low and easily manipulated carbon “price”, brown coal is cheaper than any bloody thing. Ditch your nukes, buy from Germany and we’ll show you who really won the war.

Nobody told Pierre Messmer about the invisible hand of the market. He had to run a modern economy on imported oil in the early seventies. Really. Just with some hydro,some nearly exhausted coal fields and a bit of gas almost in Spain…What would you do? Domestic heating still overloads their system (especially in this year’s Big Freeze, when they bought power massively from Germany), they got a lot wrong in their haste to go nuke, but they got out of trouble.

As to a country fabulously rich in coal and uranium that can’t get out of trouble…

And nobody told Climate Commissioner Will Steffen this week when he was saying Melbourne and Australia should follow the example of Sweden, that Sweden relies on nuclear power for a great deal of their energy needs!

The Swedes like to gesture at nuclear phase-out. They gesture. It’s like those Chinese carbon trading schemes, with plans for regional try-outs, new deadlines for something-or-other with carbon in the name, dates by which new commitments to form new committees will be confirmed, putting forward of dates by which new commitments to…

“Something’s happened. From now until Sunday July 29th, around Noon PST, WUWT will be suspending publishing. At that time, there will be a major announcement that I’m sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.”

If Anthony is closing a site for two days, pulling everyone off comment moderation, cancelling his own holidays and forewarning all media outlets to check in at a precise time this coming Sunday – he’s got a big story. I think we might be looking at climategate 3.

Pointman, what Anthony is working on is less a “gotcha” with fireworks than an “Oh Shit!” moment involving a shift of tectonic plates. In this case, the timing is critical as well. The weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth is going to come from more than one quarter. Keep an open mind until Sunday. Those with the ability to discern will be pleased.

Jo, does you blog software have the capability of counting words posted by a particular author? I would love to see the stats.
It would seem that you have some posters(trolls) that devote an enormous amount of time adding clutter to your blog. Possibilities include a) a software troll. b) nothing else to do. c) full time employee of greens/ALP/getup

Visitors to the site, where a spacer has been active, may see a page with crazy junk on it.

Not to say that some of the regular contributors don’t post junk at times, I’m sure I would be included in any such list, but when the comment on this site is often so useful, there perhaps could be a reassessment of the part played by spacers.

Before my retirement I was closely involved in the nuclear fuel cycle, mostly for ther reason that my employer company and my colleagues discovered the Ranger Uranium Mines and reignited the debate started by the AAEC ‘Nuclear Knights’. I studied the Umpter report and found it to be pessimistically bound by public service thinking. Since then (2006) China has commenced building faster and faster, many plants based on the Chinese version of the AP1000. If the Chinese can build one from greenfields in 3 years, why should we condemn ourselves to longer? Politics is the sole impediment.

The ADF doesn’t have enough ammunition to make a significant dent in Australian bureaucracies.

Yes; “they” should be able to build faster but from the decision to firing up the plant currently takes the best part of a decade, even under “ideal” conditions. vis KEPCO build for Braka in the UAE

The AP1000 is a more modular design; with standard “off the rack” components to be used for building nuclear power plants; a major cost and time saving over the individual Engineering of yore. That’s the main time saver in NPP construction; the ability to build a “production line” for a quantity of “standard” components instead of “one-off” fabrication where each one requires new Engineering, testing and approval regimes.

Chinese companies will be ready to take a type of nuclear reactor known as AP1000 to market by the end of 2012, industry experts said.

Equipment manufacturers such as Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd, Dongfang Electric Corp and Harbin Electric Corp are now capable of making five AP1000 reactor units a year, said Wang Baozhong, vice-president of China First Heavy Industries Co, which makes equipment used in the mining and energy industries.
…
“Chinese manufacturers are capable of producing showcase products but are not ready for mass production yet,”

Westinghouse is currently constructing four AP1000 units in China – two each at Sanmen and Haiyang in Shandong province. Curtiss-Wright was awarded a contract in 2007 by Westinghouse to produce 16 RCPs [reactor coolant pumps] for the four Chinese units. These are to be produced at its expanded EMD facility in Cheswick.

Wang Binghua, chairman of China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC), said that the successful completion of the RCP qualification test has demonstrated that SNPTC, Westinghouse and Curtiss-Wright/EMD “have jointly overcome the challenges with the AP1000 RCPs, which are among the most critical components of the AP1000 design.” He added, “We expect that the successful delivery of the RCPs will ensure that China’s first AP1000 unit at Sanmen will go online as projected in 2013.”

In addition to the four AP1000s under construction in China, four more are being built in the USA: two at the Vogtle site in Georgia and two at VC Summer in South Carolina.

Sanmen reactor construction (breaking ground) reportedly began in Feburary 2008 and it’s scheduled to “go commercial” in November 2013. Which is nearly 6 years in construction and commissioning time. Not that different from KEPCO’s AP1400 in the UAE; but there’s quite a bit of learning potential in AP1000 construction.